About your Search

20121227
20121227
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
. they seem desperate to do that. plenty of liberals say, go over the cliff. big cuts in the pentagon and big tax hikes. the white house, from all indications that i've seen, they don't want that to happen. they are scared of what could happen to the markets. >> why aren't they dalg dealing with boehner? dana, be go ahead. jumpb in here. >> i think they won their negotiating power once boehner last week failed. as dana pushed out, the only thing that can get boehner is to do something. >> reporter: i think that you're right when i said that democrats don't think that the president will have much political damage. that does seem to be coming more from democrats here in congress than in the white house. democrats here in congress feel that it's a win-win for them politically. the one thing i will tell you very quickly, the pushback on this narrative that i heard from senate republican leader in the hallway. he said, do you remember who the speaker was during the hoover administration? i said, no. he said, that's my point. nobody will remember who the speaker was if ge into a recession but it's
'm an employee of the pentagon or some place which there are tens of thousands of employees, is there any possibility that any deal that that come up with is going to disproportionately affect a department like that or does that happen across the board? >> well, everything as it is right now is determined by the -- a law that was passed in 2011, the budget control act. that's what set in motion this trigger for sequestration. in that law, roughly half was supposed to go to the department of defense and half in nondefense agencies. but given that, they will be -- that's one of the things that there's uncertainty among federal employees also, because we don't know yet how much discretion agencies will have and how they implement their cuts. and, again, a lot of focus is on sequestration, those automatic cuts. but that law also put in place spending caps that will affect cuts that are even larger than the sequestration cuts. so cuts are definitely coming. that's not even a question. >> ifill: it's not debatable. >> it's just how large they will be and who will be impacted by those cuts. and
, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part to instruct boeing to build. -- to build in the deficit areas of the u.s. it is pragmatic. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollarized, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing -- unless those who do not have dollars are given dollars to spend purchasing, the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. the 1950's and the 1960's. a period of immense stability very low inflation. very low unemployment. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why did it end? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism could no longer be sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. -- if you do not have it? enter a young turk in 1971. actually, he was the american, but you know what i mean. well, paul volcker -- that name may ring a bell. in 1971, pau
to washington, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollar rise, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. a period of immense stability very low inflation. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why is that? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism was sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. well, paul volcker -- been named may ring a bell. in 1971, paul volcker was an unknown working for another american. henry kissinger, who you may have heard of. before he became secretary of state. whener's paper, which are i read a few years ago, i thought it was the most remarkable document ever to emerge from washington in the last few years. looking at the emerging eco
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)